Michel Bellehumeur

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I may not be an expert in criminal law, but I did practice law for seven years and I have always understood two facts about our British-style system of justice. First, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Second, the burden rests with the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the matter now before us, in Quebec and in other provinces, there are laws on the books that say that a young person is considered to be an adult when he or she reaches 18 years of age. That is a principle. If the proposed legislative changes are adopted, a 16- or 17-year-old could be tried for a crime as a adult. To my mind, this provision flies in the face of the principle whereby everyone is treated equally under the law. In the case of some 16- or 17-year-olds, the government would be saying that while you are considered a minor under certain laws, we have adopted others which say that you are an adult and will be tried as an adult.

I find this approach extremely dangerous. It opens the door to setting aside other, perhaps more important, principles. Just how far is the government prepared to go to appease the people on the right and silence those who may be misinformed or even manipulated by groups who distort the facts?

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer these questions. First, I said that I was convinced the minister had held consultations.

The problem is that he consulted with his ears plugged. For example, what the Quebec minister of justice asked for and what the legislation now says are two completely different things. In other words, the federal justice minister consulted his provincial counterpart, but did not accept any of his suggestions and rejected everything that Quebec asked for regarding young offenders.

In fact, I believe a unanimous resolution was passed last May 5 by Quebec's National Assembly, asking that the federal justice minister not amend the Young Offenders Act, which works just fine as it is. Of course, there is always room for improvement.

However, it is not by lengthening sentences and by implementing amendments such as these that the objective of the Young Offenders Act will be reached.

According to the justice minister's release, this is just the first stage. The minister seems to want to bring changes in two stages. However, I find this to be a curious strategy, in the sense that we are taking a stand regarding that first stage and will tell the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs what we expect from a consultation process.

In my opinion, this process is biased and, in any case, it gums up the works for the debate we want to have at the second stage. The hon. member may not be pleased by the fact that I use the term repressive. But take a look at what people say outside this House. Psychologists, criminologists, sociologists, provincial politicians and journalists are almost unanimous in saying that this legislation is repressive.

Out of five salient points mentioned by the minister, three directly relate to longer sentences and to the reversal of the burden of proof in order to be heard by a youth court. I am sorry, but these provisions are repressive. There are no other words for it. Three points out of five-a clear majority-are repressive.

Consequently, I feel I can refer to this bill as a very repressive measure. This answers your three points.

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in a few words, to begin, I think I can say, and not be too far off the mark, that an elephant has just brought forth a mouse; the elephant, of course, is the problem of young offenders, you understand.

Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment which the House can accept, for the sake of young people who need help in Canada.

After receiving much media coverage, reading thousands of briefs and attending federal-provincial conferences, the minister let it be understood that the problem of young offenders was very complex and deserved special attention to produce amendments for correcting the deficiencies in the system. The big problem of youth is supposed to be solved with the bill we have in our hands.

So where do we stand? What is the wonder prescription to achieve this objective? So as not to be accused of distorting the major points of the bill, I will use the justice minister's press release of June 2. Here are the ingredients of the wonder formula to deal with the problems of young offenders.

First of all, the minister proposes extending the penalties for adolescents found guilty in youth court of first- or second-degree murder to ten and seven years respectively. What a stroke of inspiration. We see that the essential element of the bill is repression. Indeed, the government stresses this point at the outset so that everyone understands.

Secondly, the minister proposes referring to adult court 16- and 17-year-olds accused of an offence involving serious bodily harm, unless they can convince a judge that the objectives of public protection and rehabilitation can both be met if they are judged in a youth court.

This is an important change. In our system, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the Crown must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; however, if the accused is 16 or 17 years old, he is presumed to be an adult for the purposes of his trial unless the public interest does not require it.

Under our laws, an underage person will have to show that the public can be protected and he can be returned to society if his case is referred to youth court; this is a dangerous breach of legal principles which concerns me greatly.

With this bill, the government is dividing 16- and 17-year-olds into two classes: persons under 18 who are docile and can be rehabilitated and those who, at age 16 and 17, are incorrigible, as implied in the bill. If we can speak of the long arm of the law, we can now say that it is also selective.

How can such unfair treatment be compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In any event, we in Quebec have at least 25 years of experience in reintegrating young offenders in society. Although we need to invest to expand the program, and although I agree that a lot remains to be done, we have a system to provide support to a young person who needs help. But in those English-speaking provinces where rehabilitation is not a priority, where will a 16 or 17-year-old go, even if he asks for protection under the Young Offenders Act? I am quite sure that legal precedents will quickly be created and based on the principle that a 16 or 17-year-old must be held accountable for his acts, must be treated like an adult, must be dealt with by an adult court, and must also be sentenced as an adult.

In the reform he tabled last week, the minister also lengthens the sentences to be served by 16 and 17-year old offenders who are found guilty of murder by an adult court, before they can be eligible for parole. Again, the underlying message being conveyed is one of repression.

The fourth element mentioned by the minister to help young people avoid getting into trouble with the law is to improve the sharing of information between professionals, for example school authorities, the police and some public representatives, when public security is threatened, and to retain criminal records for a longer period in the case of young offenders who have committed serious crimes.

I am curious to see how clause 38.(1.14) will be interpreted as regards public security.

Many well-meaning but tactless people will append the criminal record and the court order to the academic record, precisely for so-called security reasons. What a nice introduc-

tion, for the young person, to this self-proclaimed tolerant and generous society.

The message is quite clear when you read the bill, especially as regards that issue. It says: you are a petty criminal and we will make sure that you do not forget that. We will try to ensure that you are periodically reminded of that by appending this information to your school record.

If the provisions of this bill are strictly implemented, a young delinquent will spend more time in an institution, will have less chance of rehabilitating himself and, when he gets out, will be a branded person. The last ingredient of the minister's recipe is rehabilitation and treatment. We cannot say much on this because the minister certainly did not elaborate on this particular point. He merely said that, in the case of young offenders, rehabilitation and treatment will be used when appropriate.

I am sorry, but I believe that a 10, 11, 14 or 17 year old has a right to whatever rehabilitation or treatment is required in his case. This should not be a conditional but, rather, an unconditional provision in the bill. Once again, our views are very different.

The Minister of Justice told us he consulted a lot of people, including representatives of the legal profession, police officers, school authorities, provinces and many others. Among all of the proposed amendments, I wonder which ones were requested by the Quebec Minister of Justice, the Director of Youth Protection, the Quebec Judicial Council or even the National Assembly of Quebec? Which criminologist or sociologist in Quebec would want such repression? Who in Quebec asked for this kind of amendments?

If the minister held consultations, and I am sure he did, we can only conclude that, for the government to have come up with such a flimsy effort, as I said earlier, the Liberal Party of Canada must have felt unbearable internal pressure from Western Canada. To please the majority, they once again ignored the will of Quebecers, even though Quebec had made it very clear what it wanted. To be heard, the National Assembly of Quebec as well as Bloc members in this House have always maintained their positions.

As I intend to make myself clear, maybe for the last time, I will quote none other that the Quebec Minister of Justice whom the federal minister allegedly consulted. On May 4, Mr. Roger Lefebvre, Liberal minister in the Quebec government, said: "I think it is important for the federal and provincial governments to focus their actions more on rehabilitation than on repression. Young offenders need help and support to re-enter society. It is important not to condemn in advance all young offenders who commit violent crimes".

I wonder if the minister, a federalist I might add, is happy with the bill introduced by his big brother. Yet, according to the Quebec Minister of Justice, the message was made very clear at the federal-province conference. Mr. Lefebvre sums up his position in this way: "At the federal-provincial conference of the Ministers of Justice which took place in Ottawa on March 23 and 24, I had several opportunities to express the positions of Quebec, particularly on the proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act. I also said that the Quebec government intends to pursue and intensify its search of durable and effective solutions that will meet the real needs of young people, and leave some hope for their future".

I would like to expand a little bit on that point of view because it is important to understand the inconsistencies in the current situation. I stressed that federal action must be respectful of Quebec jurisdiction and seek to reduce overlapping so that Quebec does not end up with higher costs.

I also indicated that experience in Quebec has shown that the present maximum sentence of five years is adequate for an overwhelming majority of murders committed by young people. The present transfer mechanism for serious offenses makes it possible to judge young offenders in a regular criminal court when their rehabilitation requires a long period of detention that cannot be determined.

And in the last paragraph, we have the explanation of the bill of the federal minister of justice. It is Mr. Lefebvre who says this to the National Assembly on May 4: "It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to make better use of current legislative tools for referrals instead of changing the rules, as some of the other provincial ministers of justice indicated during that federal-provincial conference". That is clear enough. Without having been present at that federal-provincial conference, I can say that Quebec City's concerns did not carry much weight in the decision of the federal justice.

I consider the Minister of Justice a progressive and I have a lot a respect for him but, unfortunately, I have to say that this bill is disappointing and dangerous. With due respect for the opposite opinion, I can say that the alarm has been sounded. Next time, what principle of our justice system will disappear? Who will take the rap so that we can silence and calm right-wing people? This bill misses the target and ignores the real flaws and the present problems.

I hear members of the government telling me that I am playing well my role of official opposition in criticizing a bill coming from the Minister of Justice. However, I will do more than that. Sometimes, I dream about putting myself in the place of a minister to try to understand his position, to follow his logic and to ask myself what I would have done if I had been in his shoes.

In the present case, it has been difficult for me to understand the minister's position and to follow his logic, but in spite of it all, I would have never meddled with the Young Offenders Act.

The problem is not the act, but its application. Indeed, if I had been in the place of the Minister of Justice, I would have outlined the situation in this way. First, I would have encouraged Western provinces and other Canadian provinces to follow the example of Quebec where rehabilitation is the basic objective. In summary, I would not have reinvented the wheel, I would simply have insisted on respect for the meaning and the purpose of the Young Offenders Act as it now stands. We do not even know the results of the latest amendments to the act and we already want to bring in some new ones. We cannot deal with such an issue on the short term, we must know where we are going.

Second, I would have talked about statistics because they are important. The most recent statistics show that crime by youths is declining. The media exaggerate the situation and the public has the wrong impression about today's young people. However, in larger cities, statistics seem to be influenced by a series of factors like the presence of gangs, new cultural communities, et cetera. Some of the things that certain members said in their speeches called this to mind.

Also in my dream, as justice minister, I would have introduced a program in partnership with the Minister of Human Resources Development in order to encourage the development, effectiveness and efficiency of youth houses, streetworkers, centres and other places for young people, by means of employment and development programs and sections like section 25. I think that prevention, education and consciousness-raising can prevent crime. I would not have condemned anyone but I would have tried to understand the problem and eliminate it at the root. The bill does not mention anything to that effect.

Third, the public rightly responds to the facts reported by the media. One particular case which recently resulted in a general outcry deals with the robbery of a convenience store by minors who were controlled by adults. The organizer of the crime, an adult, was sentenced to two years in jail even if a murder was committed in that store. This kind of case is not new. It is well-known that well organized criminals and unscrupulous bums use young people to do their crimes.

Is the minor the problem or the adult? We all know that a 10 or 11-year-old looks up to his elders. They are prepared to do anything to be accepted, even commit armed robbery or kill someone. In this case, the culprit is not the 10 or 11-year-old. The real criminal, the dangerous offender is the adult who uses a young person for his own perverted ends.

And what did the minister put in his bill to stop this shocking and shameless exploitation of young people? Nothing.

If I were the minister, I would have proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I would not be satisfied with the current sentences these adults receive when they are caught. A person who conspires with a minor to commit a crime should answer for the same crime as the minor. That is why I would have proposed a new section in the Criminal Code, to follow section 465 which deals with conspiracy, and to be referred to as section 465.1 "conspiracy with a minor".

I am not an expert on legal drafting, but to give hon. members an idea of what I would like to see in this section, I will read you a section that would have read as follows: "Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who conspire with minors to cause them to commit offences: (a) everyone who conspires with a minor to cause him to commit an offence in the meaning of section 231, first degree murder or second degree murder, in the meaning of section 239, attempt to commit murder, in the meaning of sections 233 and 234, manslaughter, in the meaning of section 273, aggravated sexual assault, in the meaning of section 268, aggravated assault, is guilty of the indictable offence of which the minor is accused and liable to the same punishment, provided under each of these sections, to which he would be liable if he had himself committed the offence''.

The second paragraph of this section would have read as follows: "Everyone who conspires with a minor or causes him to commit any other offence punishable on summary conviction or an indictable offence is, if the offence is committed by the minor, guilty of the offence as though he had committed the offence himself and is liable to the same punishment".

This section is intended to fill a gap in our legislation. It would send a very clear message that trying to be clever by using young people in our country is a criminal offence. In this way we would deal with the real problem.

Since in many cases, the adult would receive a more severe sentence than the young offender, the objective of this amendment would soon be reached. We cannot just stand there and let a young person's life be ruined. We need constructive proposals. Unfortunately, I am not the Minister of Justice, and this House has to live with Bill C-37, where it looks like in the minister's mind, there has to be a link between repression and crime. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe that we should not forget the extensive study undertaken last year in the United States, in two or three states where the young offender legislation had been amended to lengthen sentences. It shows that, instead of going down as expected, the crime rate among young people went up. How do you explain this? I do not know. I am not a psychologist, but I do

know that it is true. To claim that repression is going to lower the crime rate is ludicrous.

Bill C-37, in its present form, is contrary to Quebec's policy and legislation regarding youth protection. It flies in the face of the motion passed nearly unanimously, on May 5 last, by the Quebec National Assembly, as if we were no longer part of the federal government's concerns. Fortunately, I do hope that the House will seize the opportunity to backtrack offered by the Bloc member for Saint-Hubert, with her proposed amendment. There is no shame in admitting that one was wrong, and I believe that this amendment gives the House of Commons the opportunity to acknowledge that it is proceeding a bit too fast with an issue as important as young offenders. It could be that the consultations undertaken by the minister did not yield the expected results.

We must realize that the decision the House is going to make regarding young offenders will have far-reaching consequences since it will alter the course of their lives. It is not a decision we can make lightly.

In conclusion, I would also mention people we have not talked about yet, except in a question I asked one member, and who are not mentioned in the repressive amendments of the minister. I am referring to native young offenders.

If we look at the figures of Statistics Canada, as we go west the crime rate increases. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the figures are alarming. The rate is over 30 per cent in the Northwest Territories. What is the minister going to do with all these young people, where is he going to put them?

Is he going to build special institutions for young offenders? Is he going to increase funding for legal aid? Who is going to assume the defence of the poor? How much is it going to cost? These questions have to be answered and I am very surprised that western members, who claim to be the Official Opposition on certain issues, did not take up the case of the people who elected them and are directly affected by these amendments.

Finally, with these amendments the jails are going to be full, we will have to build more, and there will not be much rehabilitation, because the demand will be much greater than what the province can provide, given that no money was ever invested in rehabilitation and social reintegration.

For all these reasons I will support the Bloc Quebecois' amendment and vote against this bill.

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that, first of all, the opposition will co-operate on an issue like young offenders. We will certainly work on and examine this bill very seriously.

However, when we deal with such an important issue on which there seems to be unanimity in Quebec, a unanimity that is growing in the other provinces, you may find that our involvement will be one of opposing this measure. But you can be sure that we do it for young people, because 10-, 11-, 12-, 17- and 18-year-olds are not here to defend themselves, few groups will defend them, and I think it is our duty to do so.

However, I have a little question for the hon. member. I listened attentively to his speech and I like his approach on the issue of young offenders. Compared with the justice minister's bill before us, which everyone, except the government, of course, recognizes as a more repressive approach than that of the hon. member, which, as I understood from his speech, emphasizes rehabilitation and social reintegration.

I would like the hon. member to tell me where he stands on all this, how he reconciles his approach with that of the minister through Bill C-37.

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, British Columbia has the third highest youth crime rate in Canada after the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Could the hon. member for Vancouver Centre tell me what impact the amendments to the Young Offenders Act will have on young people in two specific areas, namely the tougher sentences and the referral to adult court which I, like the hon. member, think is automatic?

[Arms Smuggling, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Solicitor General. Are we to understand from his answer that the RCMP, as hinted by Le Soleil , has not put a stop to the smuggling operations which involve the use of warehouses on the Kahnawake reserve because it has not been authorized to do so by the federal government?

[Arms Smuggling, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada.

According to an article in this morning's edition of Le Soleil , the Solicitor General's office is in possession of an RCMP report that says weapons are being smuggled into the country on CP freight trains returning from the United States. According to the report, the point of entry for the smuggled weapons is Montreal, with the Kahnawake reserve being their ultimate destination.

Given that the source of this briefing note is his own department, can the Solicitor General tell us why RCMP authorities have not stepped in yet to stop the smuggling?

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, today I welcome the opportunity to speak to the hon. member's motion to raise the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000.

I would like to start by commending the hon. member for his motion, since it also gives us an opportunity to acknowledge the work done by these people and to say they are useful members of our society, and I think that is a message we can send them from this House.

The hon. member said twice that because of the standing orders, his motion was not votable. I do not know whether the hon. member could ask for unanimous consent, but if he did, I am sure he would obtain unanimous consent for the House to vote immediately on this motion. I do not know whether the hon. member is listening.

Raising the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 would be an opportunity for members of this House to give tangible recognition of the social commitment and dedication of all voluntary firefighters in Quebec and Canada.

I think the average person does not quite realize how important voluntary firefighters are to our communities. They are voluntary, because considering the compensation they receive would hardly justify considering them otherwise. And as such, they should not have to pay income tax on the pittance they earn by serving the community.

They are not permanent workers, since their main occupation is not as firefighters; they earn their living doing something else. However, they are on call and must leave everything behind to respond to distress calls. Moreover, volunteer firefighters must use their own vehicle to get to the emergency situations which they must face. These men and women, because there are indeed men and women in this service, must carry pagers with them so that they can be reached day and night. They must also attend different courses and conferences, as the hon. member mentioned earlier.

It is important to note that the tax exemption has not been changed since 1980. At that time, it went from $300 to $500 to account for inflation; some people thought that the $300 amount was not fair any more and should be amended to $500. That calculation has not been done since 1980. I think that, today, we could make exactly the same calculation and come up with the amount of $1,000 as proposed in this motion.

Since 1980, while inflation has been considerably increasing every year, volunteer firefighters have been paying more taxes on a service they voluntarily provide to their communities. Consequently, it would be normal to increase the tax exemption according to the standard of living in our society. Also, it is important to keep in mind the abilities, both physical and academic, that such a job requires. Generally, volunteer firefighters have attended all the basic first-aid courses: St. John's Ambulance, Red Cross, CPR and others. This is quite something for a job you do only on a voluntary basis.

We should also point out, and this is very important, that volunteer firefighters help municipalities to provide a service they could probably not afford otherwise. It is a fact that in the rural municipalities that cannot afford a professional firefighting brigade, the role of volunteer firefighters is vital. The safety of millions of people is in their hands.

Without them there would be a multimillion dollar void which would have to be filled with our taxes. I believe the hon. member mentioned that point in his speech. If we do not raise this exemption, if we do not acknowledge in some way the work of these dedicated men and women, and if they stop being volunteer firefighters, municipalities and taxpayers will have to pay dearly to get a similar service. So, why not raise this exemption again? This would send a tremendous message to these men and women who put their lives on the line to save others.

On a social and community level, how many times have I seen volunteer firefighters take part in fundraising campaigns, either for the MIRA foundation, the United Way, or shelters for abused women or drug addicts? How many times have volunteer fire departments joined civil defence teams to assist communities ravaged by floods, tornadoes or other environmental disasters?

In my riding of Berthier-Montcalm, I saw the volunteer fire department at work, fighting against floods along the St. Lawrence and cleaning up after a tornado hit Maskinongé. They do a terrific job. Public security is in good hands. On the national level, the tragic fire at the tire depot in Saint-Amable, in the Montreal area, highlighted the remarkable role played by these men and women who are much more than volunteer firefighters. They got involved after the fire to make sure that the neighbour-

ing population suffered as little as possible from the damage to the environment and got all the help they needed.

I believe that such events opened the eyes of many. One must realize that these volunteers have to leave their jobs, their homes, and their families to go and help the community when it is threatened. I call upon the government to vote in favour of this motion- it will not be a direct vote, but through this House, the government should get the message-to increase this tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 without delay. Together, we must send our heartfelt thanks to all the volunteers who are dedicated to public security across Quebec and Canada.

Volunteer firefighters are too often forgotten by the government and the population as a whole. Today we have an opportunity to thank them by supporting the motion. As elected representatives, we feel secure because of them and we must support the motion.

As for me, I thank the 994 volunteer firefighters in50 different municipalities in my riding. I want to show them my entire support in this motion and I will see to it that the government adopts it as fast as possible.

[Anti-Smoking Advertising, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The government is about to launch a $185 million program over three years to combat tobacco product use. Out of this amount, $55 million will be spent on an anti-smoking ad blitz. Can the Minister of Health confirm that the government intends to spend $55 million on an anti-smoking ad campaign, when studies have clearly shown that previous campaigns have only had a minimum impact on cigarette use, especially among teenagers?

[Jacques Villeneuve, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Berthier-Moncalm, I am proud to rise today to salute Jacques Villeneuve's outstanding performance in the Indianapolis 500.

At the age of only 23 and making his debut on the Indy circuit this year, the son of the legendary Gilles Villeneuve accomplished a real feat by finishing second in one of the most prestigious car races.

Because Jacques Villeneuve shows so much determination at the start of his career, I am convinced this second place finish is only the beginning of a long series of successes and victories for him.